> From: Michael Kaplan <view@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: interleaving
> It turns out that the film - like many, today - was shot on
> high-definition video, then edited and transcribed to film. The VHS tape
> I rented was made from the film version.
one of the reason to use high quality video when filming, instead of
acetate/mylar, is the facility to add later special effects, and the lower
cost of the registering material. Technicolor or b/w film rolls cost a lot
more than betamax professional tape. and if some take must be refilmed,
eventually seven or 13 time, the video tape cost is easily affordable.
>
> Well, I just acquired a 'screening copy' of the so-called film - a VHS
> copy provided as a sample to potential distributors and critics; to my
> great surprise, this VHS tape was transcribed *not* from the film, but
> from the original, edited high-definition tape.
>
> So what's the big deal? The medium of tape totally transformed the piece
> into *television* - utterly different in quality from the film.
that's the point i wrote here before. passing from the 30 fps video to 24
acetate ( sometimes called commercially mylar) represent some lost material.
6 frames per sec.
a quart of the final product must be edited some way, and the passage from
high to low frame rate means taking of / compressing / digitally transform/
morph you name it ( depends of wich standard is used to pass from 30 to
24fps) those 6 pict. so some loss must occur. some blurring.
> Question (for you VISLAB folks): why? Is
> it the scanning rate (24 fps vs. 30 fps)? Is it light coming through
> mylar?
not exactly . diffusion/ definition problems. any graphic process of optical
copy represents a small quality loss. only pure digital processes avoids
such, because the copying process uses bites, not some optical process when
some light quality can be lessened just for the optical/diffraction losses,
if your screening vhs copy was made from an optical film copy,optically or
electronically, there is much more loss than when such copy is made from
the video original, electronically.
I think these were issues discussed somewhere by McLuhan, maybe
> in "Medium is the Massage." Anyone remember?
was Mac Luhan a Massagist ????
Eventually he massaged some masses...
Good interesting typo..., Mike !!!
(:-D)
>
> --
> Michael Kaplan
> Subject: interleaving
> It turns out that the film - like many, today - was shot on
> high-definition video, then edited and transcribed to film. The VHS tape
> I rented was made from the film version.
one of the reason to use high quality video when filming, instead of
acetate/mylar, is the facility to add later special effects, and the lower
cost of the registering material. Technicolor or b/w film rolls cost a lot
more than betamax professional tape. and if some take must be refilmed,
eventually seven or 13 time, the video tape cost is easily affordable.
>
> Well, I just acquired a 'screening copy' of the so-called film - a VHS
> copy provided as a sample to potential distributors and critics; to my
> great surprise, this VHS tape was transcribed *not* from the film, but
> from the original, edited high-definition tape.
>
> So what's the big deal? The medium of tape totally transformed the piece
> into *television* - utterly different in quality from the film.
that's the point i wrote here before. passing from the 30 fps video to 24
acetate ( sometimes called commercially mylar) represent some lost material.
6 frames per sec.
a quart of the final product must be edited some way, and the passage from
high to low frame rate means taking of / compressing / digitally transform/
morph you name it ( depends of wich standard is used to pass from 30 to
24fps) those 6 pict. so some loss must occur. some blurring.
> Question (for you VISLAB folks): why? Is
> it the scanning rate (24 fps vs. 30 fps)? Is it light coming through
> mylar?
not exactly . diffusion/ definition problems. any graphic process of optical
copy represents a small quality loss. only pure digital processes avoids
such, because the copying process uses bites, not some optical process when
some light quality can be lessened just for the optical/diffraction losses,
if your screening vhs copy was made from an optical film copy,optically or
electronically, there is much more loss than when such copy is made from
the video original, electronically.
I think these were issues discussed somewhere by McLuhan, maybe
> in "Medium is the Massage." Anyone remember?
was Mac Luhan a Massagist ????
Eventually he massaged some masses...
Good interesting typo..., Mike !!!
(:-D)
>
> --
> Michael Kaplan